We are heading into the final stretch of this year’s exploration of the 18th-century kitchen at George Washington’s Ferry Farm, and it definitely hasn’t disappointed! The finds are getting bigger and better as we continue excavating deeper into the cellar and expand our look into the surrounding area. We have made a ton of progress that wouldn’t have been possible without the help of our crew of the George Washington Foundation staff, interns, and University of South Florida field school students. While there are still a few weeks before the official end of the dig on July 11. Just in case you missed them, here are some quick introductions and fun finds from the 2025 field school and crew.
Left to right: Judy, Danielle, Abby, Sarah, Alaina, Alaina S., Sofia, Addie
Field School
“Hi, my name is Alaina Scapicchio, and I am a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of History at the University of South Florida. This is my third summer digging at Ferry Farm. My favorite moment of the summer was excavating a partially intact pig jaw!”
-Alaina
“Hi! My name is Addie, I am a history and anthropology student at the University of South Florida. My favorite artifact to find are the animal bones.”
-Addie
“Hi, my name is Alaina. I am studying history at USF. My favorite part of the field school was digging in the kitchen because of how many cool artifacts we found. My favorite artifact was the piece of the Bartmann jug!”
-Alaina
“Sofia Almeida is a first-year History PhD student at the University of South Florida. Her research focuses on historic cemeteries, public history, and memory. One of her favorite parts of field school was digging in the kitchen cellar. One of her favorite artifacts this season was a decorated fragment of Staffordshire ceramic.”
-Sofia
GWF Interns
“Hey! My name is Abby! I am a recent graduate from UVA and am planning to pursue a career in archaeology. I enjoy reading and playing Ultimate Frisbee in my free time. My favorite artifact that I helped find this season was a projectile point with jagged edges.”
-Abby
“Hey all, my name’s Max Puckett. I’m a senior at the University of Mary Washington, currently pursuing a BA in Historic Preservation. In my spare time, I like to cook, research, and read. I’ve really loved this field season so far- we are pulling out a ton of interesting and exciting artifacts.”
-Max
Sarah came to Ferry Farm as a VCU student in the summer of 2014 and has been in over half a dozen summer digs since then. This year’s dig is very special to her because it is focused on the cellar of the Washington kitchen. Her favorite artifacts from this dig are the ones that can actually be paired and mended with each other because much of what collapsed in the kitchen fire was left in place and not scattered or missing.
-Sara
GWF Staff
I have been involved with the Ferry Farm Archaeology Department since 2012, when my youngest twins graduated from high school. I started out as a volunteer but then took on a part-time position cataloguing artifacts from the summer digs, which then turned into a full-time job as a lab assistant. I have been co-field director since 2019. I have a BA in Anthropology and an MA in Historical Archaeology, with past jobs in cultural resource management and historic sites, such as Mount Vernon. Though I really enjoy pulling out the handfuls of wine bottle necks and bases, I do find it more awe-inspiring when we pick out the tiniest and fragile eggshell fragments among the rubble and debris inside the kitchen cellar.
-Judy Jobrack
“Hello! I’m Danielle, and I have been at Ferry Farm since 2022, first as an intern and then lab assistant and co-field director. As a UMW Historic Preservation alum, I love all things old, both above ground and below, so this year’s dig has been particularly exciting with all the architectural bits we have been finding. With that said, I think my favorite artifact so far has been a brass/copper button –metal with verdigris is just so cool!”
-Danielle Arens
Though some of our crew is leaving, the rest of us will be digging every weekday until July 11, so be sure to come say hi and see what new things we have uncovered!
Archaeology is trash. There, I said it. Before you call Mr. Jones and have me thrown in a pit of snakes, let me explain. Generally speaking, archaeology focuses on understanding the past through the items that people left behind, i.e., their trash. Most of the things we find are left around because they were broken or no longer needed. Disposal of these items looked much different before modern garbage collection as we know it today. Rather than trashcans and landfills, trash was often thrown outside of the home or workspace near windows and doors or any other designated disposal areas. These areas, also known as middens, usually have a high number of artifacts and are top-tier when it comes to understanding a site. So, in other words, archaeology is trash, and we love it.
Most people can get behind the archaeologists saving the trash that’s hundreds or thousands of years old, but things are a little different when it comes to saving more modern materials like plastic. When visitors or volunteers see things like plastic bottle caps or food wrappers in our bags to bring back to the lab, they usually have a few questions. Like, “Did you mean to keep this?” Or “Why are you keeping this trash?” Here at Ferry Farm, we don’t pick favorites, every bit of trash can tell us something about the site and how it has been used.
One-way modern materials can help us understand a site is by helping us determine the Terminus Post Quem (TPQ), or “time after which,” of a layer. The TPQ is determined by identifying the earliest production date of the most recently produced item. For layers deposited before the widespread use of plastics, ceramics are usually used for determining the TPQ because they are datable (temporally, not romantically) since most have very specific production dates, and they also hold up pretty well under ground. For example, when looking at the ceramics in a layer with tin-glazed wares, Buckley, and creamware, the TPQ would be 1762 since that is the earliest production date of the most recently produced ceramic (creamware). All the items in the layer had to have been deposited after that date.
The same idea works with modern synthetic materials like plastics, which are usually found at sites that have been used within the last 100 years. If there were to be some plastic soda bottles, weed eater line, and styrofoam in a layer, the TPQ would be 1978. While these materials may also be items you have in your home, not thought to be worth collecting and preserving, their presence in a layer helps provide a date. They can also tell us if an earlier layer was disturbed.
When archaeologists talk about disturbed layers, we aren’t judging their emotional state or love of 2000s heavy metal. Instead, when a layer is described as disturbed, that means there was some sort of activity happening after the initial deposition that affected that layer. During last season’s dig, there were layers with a mix of colonial, prehistoric, and modern materials that indicated that the area was disturbed by some subsequent activity. The information gathered by the presence of modern materials is important for the interpretation of the site and its use over time.
Example of a disturbed layer– Artifacts include prehistoric flakes and fire-cracked rock, colonial items like tobacco pipe stems, Civil War Minie balls, and modern-day plastics
Now that we know why we keep this so-called modern trash. Here are a few examples of how the presence of these items helped our archaeologists understand a part of our site.
My favorite example happened during last year’s dig. One of our crew, Abbie, was preparing a feature for photographs and had to keep clipping pesky hairlike roots that were in the way. After a bit of excavating, it turns out the “roots” were bristles from a plastic broom. The broom dated the feature fill to the late 20th century and got to the root of the hairy soil issue.
Pesky broom in feature
Our staff has numerous examples of these modern materials being used to help identify previous archaeology as well, from candy wrappers at the bottom of shovel test pits and trenches to an entire trowel! While things like plastic trash bags and food containers aren’t the most exciting to find, they play a part in interpreting the history of activities on the site.
Once something is left behind, it becomes part of the archaeological record, whether it was 10,000 years ago or yesterday’s lunch. What does your trash say about you?
A lot of people have told me that they want or wanted to become archaeologists. I always find this flattering. Yours truly was only in my single digits when I declared the same to my family and anyone who would listen. After reading every National Geographic magazine I could get my hands on, ‘excavating’ abandoned houses and bottle dumps on or near the property where I grew up, and too many years of schooling than I am willing to admit…. here I am today. I am an archaeologist of 25 years. That being said, it is not an easy profession to get into. To wedge your way into this field, it is recommended you have an obsession with learning, stubbornness equal to a Black Friday shopper outside a Target in 20-degree temperatures at 3 am the night before, a hefty amount of luck, the willingness to obsess over dead people’s broken garbage, and just to be sure it would help if you’re at least a little bit mad.
Happy archeologists!
Now, I am an archaeology lab manager in our museum, which means I enjoy the comfort of climate control, access to bathrooms, an office, and a place to store my breakfasts and lunches. But, like most archaeologists, I had to cut my teeth in the field (digging outside), which lacked all the above amenities. This is where many archaeologists figure out if they genuinely want to go through with the folly they have embarked upon. Many decide they do not and switch majors. Good for them; they likely make more money than most archaeologists. But could it really be that bad? Isn’t it fun finding cool stuff? Yes, of course. But here are all the obstacles those noble field archaeologists face daily:
Bugs. Lots of them. Bugs have taken down many of my brave colleagues. Forget the snakes (Unlike Indiana Jones, most of us like snakes) and spiders. I am talking about chiggers and ticks. No one gets just one chigger bite. They hang out in gangs of hundreds, and you will not know they have bitten you until they have had their fill of your yummy body juices and peace-ed out. Hours later, you’ll notice around your ankles and waistband the unbelievable itching of dozens of bites that will haunt you for weeks. Ticks are worse. Way worse. Ticks carry diseases that can be very serious, including Lyme and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, both of which should be avoided at all costs. Don’t forget bees, hornets, and wasps. No archaeologist worth their salt is without a harrowing tale of valiantly battling or running the heck away from a swam of ticked-off single-minded, murderous, flying, stingy wingy thingies.
Ticks of VirginiaLyme Disease symptoms
Plants that will make you wish you were never born. Let’s start with some annoying and inconvenient but not diabolical plants: Those with thorns. After being told by your crew chief that you need to hack your way through a six-foot-tall thicket of blackberries, multiflora rose, devil’s walking sticks (Yep, that’s a thing), cacti, or thistles in order to dig one tiny shovel test pit you WILL begin to question your life’s choices. However, for those who are allergic to poison ivy, oak, and/or sumac (and it’s most of us), your field career will be a constant battle where your enemy has highly transmittable and very toxic poison juices in every single part of them (even the roots) while you are armed with a bottle of calamine lotion. Those field archaeologists who do not get poison ivy will make fun of you and flaunt their superpowers, but just remember they’ll get theirs because the more you’re exposed to these plants, the more likely you are to feel their wrath.
Poison IvyPoison SumacDevil’s Walking Stick
Ancient Curses. No, you should NOT read that inscription on the 3,000-year-old tablet found in that tomb with all the warnings engraved on the entrance. If I had a nickel every time I had to tell a member of my crew to drop that darn ancient idol that’s started to glow red inside and run, I’d be able to pay off my student debts. Just kidding, that will never happen.
Unbroken seal of King Tut’s tomb…maybe just leave it.
This one is very serious and should never be taken lightly by anyone working outdoors because they take anyone by surprise just like that. Dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, sunburn, and frostbite. Field archeologists must dig in almost all conditions and all seasons. They are wind-worn and road-weary, and you should not mess with anyone who can dig dozens of holes a day in temperatures above 100 or below freezing.
Virginia can get very hot and humid in the summer, stay hydrated.Glacial archaeology at Ötzi in 1991 Sometimes it miserably wet (particularly in England)
Animals. I’m not talking just about the wild ones. I’ve only ever seen a bear in the woods once, just a few harmless snakes and maybe a couple of bucks that gave me the side eye. But I have had years knocked off my life by pheasants or tiny fawns exploding out of the brush a foot away from me. For the most part, pets are not an issue, and petting a friendly dog or cat is a welcome reprieve from digging holes. Livestock, however, would scare my crews. I grew up on a farm, so I knew what animals didn’t want to snuggle. Here’s the thing, though. Cows are bored and extremely curious when something or someone spices up their daily routine. It’s hard for someone from the city to calmly stare down a herd of Holsteins weighing 1,500 pounds each while they barrel towards you. But all they want is to sniff you, rifle through your dig kit, and lick your equipment because it’s salty. Annoyingly, they will also eat the plastic flagging tape that you carefully tied up to mark your transect line. So will deer, fun fact.
Friend found during dig at Ferry Farm…they were saved and moved to a more peaceful spot.Just investigating the work.Judy Jobrack, GWF Archaeology Field Director dog Coco stops by sometimes to supervise.
Unexploded ordinance (UXO). Gunpowder does not necessarily become so old that it won’t go boom any longer. It actually becomes less and less stable. Sure, that cannonball you found is cool. Sure, it’s super old. Stay. Away. From. It. Military bases and old battlefields are ripe with potentially dangerous mortars, shells, grenades, and bullets. Unfortunately, here in Virginia, there are cases of collectors who have brought finds home from Civil War battlefields only to find out the hard way that these artifacts can still do a lot of harm. That being said, you’d be surprised at all the places archaeologists have found things that can explode. I worked on a project in a former neighborhood, so imagine our surprise when a pit in the backyard of a house was found to contain dozens of WWII live .50 caliber antiaircraft ammunition. One thing you learn very quickly as an archaeologist is that some people are weird, and they do weird things you will never be able to explain. The fancy word for this is idiosyncratic behavior, and it’s one of my favorite terms. It’s the academic way to throw up your hands and say, “I got nothing.” So, if you find any UXO, contact local law enforcement; they know what to do with it.
Collapsed excavation units. Unstable excavation walls are no joke. I’ve personally had one collapse on me, and while I was fine, it was still frightening. Shoring up walls and expanding out before digging deeper can mitigate these issues, but there are many types of soils, and they’re not created equal, so never overestimate the strength of your walls. Don’t become an artifact yourself.
Digs can get pretty deep and the sides need to stabilized. Another deep dig
Soil contamination/hazardous waste. Archaeologists occasionally run into hazardous waste, which is bad—enough said. Arsenic was a major embalming ingredient in the 19th century, and since archaeologists are frequently called in to identify and remove burials, arsenic is a significant consideration. It was also used to make a beautiful green color called Scheel’s green, which was used in dying such things as fabric, book covers, and wallpaper. Imagine wearing a gorgeous Victorian-era dress while reading a book and sitting in a wallpapered room all dyed green with copious quantities of poison. Green is my favorite color but hold the early death, please. Mercury was considered a type of cure and used to treat various ailments such as syphilis, toothaches, melancholy, worms, tuberculosis, constipation, and apoplexy, to name a few. It was in perfumes, lotions, soaps, hats, etc….and just like arsenic, it doesn’t go away in the soil. And if you’re above a certain age, you definitely remember those mercury thermometers that, when broken, produced magical fun silver balls you could roll across the floor until your mother caught you. Another principal offender is lead. Humans discovered how awesome lead was thousands of years ago. Please don’t personally verify this, but somehow, the Romans found that degraded lead was sweet, so they put it in substandard wine to jazz it up a bit. Lead was also used in cosmetics until embarrassingly recently to produce that immaculate white complexion valued by the upper crust. YOLO. Lead was also used in water pipes, paint, glassware, ceramic glazes, and later in plastics and gasoline. There is so much lead in our environment now that even non-archaeologists are in danger of exposure. I could go on and on, but it’s time to move to…
Medicinal bottle with mercury found at Ferry FarmUranium glass teacuplead-glazed bowlLeaded crystal vaseLead vase under black light
Enraged locals and/or property owners. We get it. No one wants that pipeline/highway/gas line/sewer to go through their property. And when it does, the archaeologists have to test that area. But please don’t run out of your house while visibly carrying a firearm and threaten the archaeologists. We are the lowest entity on this unpleasant totem pole and unfortunately the first people you’ll see trapsing over your land and digging holes. This was not our idea; it was our job. Working on these projects is the worst because people are understandably angry and want to vent, but this is not the way to do it. Ironically, one of the only things that can stop that pipeline from going through your horse pasture is if we find some amazing archaeological site with immense cultural significance. This will force a rerouting of the project, so your neighbors will have to deal with the headache.
Dealing with enraged locals is a delicate situation
This is not by any means intended as an exhaustive list, but I’ve already greatly exceeded my word count for this blog. You get the idea. So why, you may ask, does anyone become an archaeologist? Quite simply put, every job has its hassles, some more than others, but most archaeologists really (and I mean REALLY) love archaeology. The jobs in archaeology may not fit the stereotypes (full disclosure: most of us adore Indiana Jones, though). Archaeology is rarely glamorous; it can be dangerous or frustrating, but it is, above all else, AWESOME. Being a part of uncovering human history and sharing information never gets old, and I wouldn’t trade my job for any other.
If you have visited Ferry Farm recently or follow us on social media, you may have noticed the construction of two buildings near the Washington House. These new structures represent those that stood in these spots during George Washington’s time and were constructed using 18th-century methods. Identified through archaeology, their reconstructions allow us to tell better the stories of the people who lived and worked at Ferry Farm. We have previously blogged about the Quarter, a building for housing enslaved individuals owned by the Washingtons. For this blog, we will look at an integral structure located behind the Washington dwelling: the Cellar House.
The Cellar House
What is a cellar house, you may ask? While explaining it to my 7-year-old son, I told him it is neither a cellar nor a house (by modern standards). At this point, he threw up his arms and gave me up for an imbecilic parent. However, this structure was extremely important for large farms in the 18th century. Picture a simple timber and daub (fancy word for hardened clay) building with four walls, one door, high rafters, no windows, and a three-foot-deep pit beneath its floorboards. It is not fancy or decorative by any standards, yet this building holds preserved food that feeds dozens of people at Ferry Farm during seasons when fresh food is unavailable.
Location of the Cellar House on the Ferry Farm property
Let’s do a brief overview of food preservation during the Washington time period since it has already been touched on in previous blogs. Keeping food from going bad varies from region to region, depending on your climate (combinations of cold, wet, dry, or hot). The hot and humid months in Virginia posed quite a problem for colonists. These conditions do not lend themselves to easy food preservation. Plainly speaking, the East Coast Southern States drew the short straw when it came to keeping food consumable in the long term. As they say, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” and Virginians had a wide variety of cards in their deck for keeping food from rotting. Salt, sugar, wood ash, alcohol, vinegar (which was formerly alcohol), and other substances were utilized along with methods including smoking, fermenting, and dehydrating. However, even the best food preservation methods are useless if the resulting food is not stored correctly.
The cellar house could store many different types of foods and beverages, depending on where one kept them in the building. The rafters were ideal for cured meats such as hams, keeping them high and dry. Hooks on the walls held bunches of drying herbs, garlic, and onions. The shelves were perfect for baskets and small crocks of food, while the floor was sturdy for storing large casks or jugs of ale and cider, sacks of grain, and bushels of hardy vegetables and fruits. The pit beneath the floorboards, a glorified ‘cellar,’ was a few degrees cooler in the hot months and a few degrees warmer during the cold season. However, the difference between spoilage and edibility could hinge on maybe 10 degrees, making the subfloor pit essential for colonists who needed to keep some food cooler in summer but warmer (not freezing solid) in winter. Basically, the role the cellar house played varied by the seasons as a revolving door of foods came and went.
Inside of Cellar HouseInside of Cellar House
When archaeologists at Ferry Farm excavated the area underneath and around where the cellar house would have been, we found artifacts indicative of such a structure. Namely, very few items would have been found inside and around a dwelling, such as tea and tablewares, byproducts of meals, and valuable personal items. Large storage vessels, metal hooks for hanging food, and wrought nails and daub used to build the structure dominate the cellar house artifacts. The only notable personal items recovered were fragments of smoking pipes. That’s right, the smoke break was a thing even among enslaved workers stacking food inside the cellar house.
Ceramics from the Cellar HouseFaunal finds from the Cellar HouseGlass finds from the Cellar House
The cellar house is currently fully constructed, but we have yet to populate it with all of the storage vessels, food, smoking pipes, and other accouterments of a storage building. Eventually, visitors will be able to look into this building and take a trip back to the mid-eighteenth century with crocks, jugs, bottles, sacks, barrels, and baskets full of food and drink. All of which will be informed by the historic records and the artifacts recovered by our archaeologists, as with all the reconstructed buildings at Ferry Farm. Then, perhaps when I show the building to my son, he’ll see its importance: part pantry, part colonial refrigerator, and all cellar house.
If you have visited Ferry Farm recently or follow us on social media, you may have noticed the construction of two buildings near the Washington House. These new structures represent ones that stood in these spots during George Washington’s time. Identified through archaeology, their reconstructions allow us to better tell the stories of the people who lived and worked at Ferry Farm. For this blog, we will look at the structure adjacent to the Washington House along the embankment overlooking the Rappahannock: The Quarter.
What’s in a Name?
First, we need to define what we mean when we call the structure “the Quarter.” Regarding enslaved life, the term “quarter” can refer to several different situations. Generally, it refers to a structure that housed enslaved individuals with “quarter,” equating to a living space or personal quarters. The term has nothing to do with the number and makeup of the occupants or the appearance of the building. The other use for the term refers to a group of enslaved people. Augustine Washington’s probate inventory lists seven enslaved people at Ferry Farm’s “satellite quarter” (Fig. 1). In this use, it does not refer to a single physical structure but rather a group of people and their housing unit that moved around. “The Quarter” uses the term for a single structure, identified through archaeology, that housed an enslaved family in the heart of the Ferry Farm plantation.
Figure 1: Section of Augustine’s probate inventory listing individuals at the satellite “quarter”
Enslaved Housing
Living conditions varied widely across the Mid-Atlantic and even within a single plantation. Customarily, enslaved people lived where they worked. Work yard structures included living quarters above the workspace while the fields had structures akin to dormitories that housed people divided by biological sex. In certain cases, independent structures may have served as housing for single family units (Fig. 2). Those that lived within these spaces generally held high ranking positions within the hierarchy established by enslavers. Housing generally stood outside public view and in areas convenient to the work undertaken by the inhabitants. Quarters within sight of the public served as status symbols for the gentry.
Figure 2: 1860 engraving depicting single quarters in South Carolina (Slavery Images)
Identifying quarters today largely comes from historic records, oral history, archaeology, and architectural features. All of this can help establish a range of appearances for such structures. When a building no longer remains standing, these observations can be compared to artifacts uncovered at the site to determine its identity. Sub-floor storage pits, often located near hearths, serve as key architectural identifiers, while artifacts that reflect African diaspora culture, outdated items, and evidence of labor help pinpoint the identities of the inhabitants. Quarters served as the only personal spaces allotted to enslaved people, so any artifacts recovered can speak to their personal identities rather than those defined by Virginia colonials.
Archaeological Evidence
The excavation of the Quarter occurred in 2003, and research in successive years helped to identify its role and understand the lives of its inhabitants.
Architecture: When excavated, little remained of the Quarter, but the architectural elements present and absent provided enough information to understand its appearance. Archaeologists recovered small quantities of Aquia sandstone around the quarter indicating it may have had a light stone foundation and hearth. The main impact it had on the ground surface occurred through the creation of a sub-floor pit. These pits frequently appeared in quarters and served as storage areas for the occupants’ personal effects. Unfortunately, a tree later intruded a portion of the pit and the surrounding area thus making it difficult to study (Fig. 3). Other architectural elements included an abundance of nails and an absence of window glass (Fig. 4). This indicates the building had clapboard siding and likely shuttered windows in place of glass ones.
Figure 3: Quarter Excavation SiteFigure 4: Nail distribution around Quarter
Tableware (Fig. 5): Within the eighteenth-century contexts, we recovered many ceramics and utensils of European origin. White-salt glazed stoneware dishes and dog-nosed spoons represent styles in decline by the 1740s. This indicates that the enslaved occupants either received hand-me-downs from the Washingtons, a common practice, or purchased used items in the local market. A colonoware bowl served as an exception. A local ceramic type attributed to free and enslaved black communities, colonoware production mixed African ceramic techniques with European vessel forms.
Figure 5: Tableware (L-R white salt glazed stoneware, dog-nosed spoon handle, colonoware bowl, table knives)
Small Finds (Fig. 6): Analysis of the artifacts revealed the personal effects of the occupants, their possible identities, and the labor they carried out. Wig curlers appear frequently throughout Ferry Farm, but the recovery of several at the Quarter indicates that the individual(s) tasked with maintaining the Washington wigs may have lived within. Sewing implements, such as thimbles, reflect labor carried out by enslaved women and girls either for the Washingtons or for themselves. A common practice in colonial Virginia saw each enslaved person receive a ration of cloth from which they fashioned their own clothing. Straight pins further indicate the presence of female occupants as these pins held their garments, such as bed gowns, together. Both genders used the numerous tobacco pipes recovered. The fishhook speaks to an entirely personal activity, as enslaved communities often supplemented their food rations by fishing. The pierced coin serves as the artifact most indicative of enslaved culture. Piercing a coin allowed the owner to keep it on their person as a form of adornment. Such coins often served as talismans, though they could re-enter the economic world as needed.
Diet (Fig. 7): Faunal remains found at the Quarter supplement the information provided by the fishhook. As expected, we identified several fish species including types of perch, catfish, and sunfish which lived in the Rappahannock at that time. Other animals included cattle, chickens, pigs, opossum, and shellfish, such as oysters. This mix of domestic and wild species indicates that the Quarter’s occupants supplemented the rations supplied by the Washingtons. The enslaved commonly achieved this by maintaining small gardens and raising chickens, hunting, fishing, and foraging. While we did not recover any plant remains, those consumed by the inhabitants likely reflected a similar mix of wild and domestic species.
Figure 7: Faunal (L-R Oyster shells, eggshells under microscope, fish scales/bones under microscope, various mammal bones)
Reconstruction and Interpretation
The reconstruction of the Quarter combined our archaeological evidence with the historic knowledge of enslaved housing (Fig. 8). The finished Quarter measures 16’x14’ which aligns with standard measurements for single-family quarters. From our archaeology, it has clapboard siding, sliding shutters in place of glass windows, a subfloor pit, and sandstone hearth. Information on contemporary quarters led to the inclusion of a loft and a daub lined wood chimney. Architects used eighteenth-century techniques to reconstruct the building.
Figure 8: The Quarter, various views
From our findings, we concluded that the quarter housed a single family. At least one of these individuals held a high-ranking position within the labor hierarchy allotted these living arrangements (Fig. 9). The structure’s proximity to the Washington House and work yard indicates the occupants worked within these spaces. The position on the bluff overlooking the Rappahannock meant that this quarter, unlike others, lay in view of the public. “The prominent placement of this structure on the landscape may mean that it was used to reinforce Washington’s prominent social standing in colonial Virginia.”
Figure 9: Portion of Augustine’s probate inventory listing individuals at Ferry Farm; some may have called the Quarter home
The Quarter will open to visitors this fall, and visitors will be able to read about and visualize the lives of those who lived within. Like the Washington House, everything that furnishes the Quarter will be interactive and reflect archaeological finds. Planning remains ongoing for this, but when complete, visitors may find outdated tableware, evidence of meals, tools for labor, and personal effects.
Emma Schlauder
Research Archaeologist
Bibliography
Augustine Washington Probate Inventory, 1743
Carson, Cary & Carl Lounsbury (editors) 2013 The Chesapeake House: Architectural Investigation by Colonial Williamsburg. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Katz-Hyman, Martha B. & Kym S. Rice (editors) 2011 World of a Slave: Encyclopedia of the Material Life of Slaves in the United States. Greenwood, Santa Barbara, CA.
Lanier, Gabrielle M. & Bernard L. Vlach 1997 Everyday Architecture of the Mid-Atlantic: Looking at Buildings and Landscapes. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Lounsbury, Carl R. (editor) 1994 An Illustrated Glossary of Early Southern Architecture and Landscape. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Samford, Patricia 1996 The Archaeology of African-American Slavery and Material Culture. William & Mary Quarterly 53(1): 87-114.
2000 Power Runs in Many Channels: Subfloor Pits and West African-Based Spiritual Traditions in Colonial Virginia. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.
Stilgoe, John R. 1982 Common Landscapes of America, 1580-1845. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Wells, Camille 1993 The Planter’s Prospect: Houses, Outbuildings, and Rural Landscapes in Eighteenth Century Virginia. Winterthur Portfolio 28(1): 1-31.
Vlach, John M. 1993 Back of the Big House: the Architecture of Plantation Slavery. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Many readers will undoubtedly recognize these two artifacts (Fig. 1). Known as cowrie shells, these artifacts have become synonymous with slavery and serve as identifiers for the presence of free and enslaved Black individuals in the Americas. Still, the role of cowries in the 18th century goes far beyond that of a marker.
Origin
Cowries (Cypraeidae), a taxonomic family of sea snail, live throughout the world (Fig. 2). However, the species with the most relevance to the 1700s reside in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly in the waters around the Maldives. They include Monetaria annulus (alt. Cypraea annulus, Annulus Linnaeus) and Monetaria moneta (Fig. 3). Even if your Latin proves non-existent, each species’ genus, along with M. moneta’s epithet, easily identifies the original role cowries played in human hands – money.
Centuries before the 1700s, West Africa thrived as a region of independent kingdoms and tribes. With these groups engaged in trade, they required a shared currency that served as a medium of exchange and a store of value. In choosing cowries as currency in the fourteenth century, West Africa continued a long history of groups throughout the world using shell money. Through pre-existing trade routes to the Indo-Pacific, West Africans could easily import the shells via other parts of Africa and had them transported across the Sahara. As the cowries used did not reside in West Africa and proved difficult to forge, the market had built in protections against hyperinflation and counterfeits.
Once in West Africa, the shells served as the basis of the region’s economies. Still, the shells took on several cultural roles. To keep cowries on hand, the shells often underwent modifications, including slicing off the rounded side of the shell or piercing them (Fig. 4). This allowed for stringing them together and weaving into hair or onto clothing. While done for practical reasons, this led cowries to enter the world of personal adornment. With this, their role expanded to symbols of status, fertility, and beauty while further appearing on ceremonial garb (Fig. 5).
Figure 5: Benin Bronze plaque; 16th-17th century. The warriors on either side of the central figure wear helmets decorated with cowries British Museum
Atlantic Trade Routes
Europe and Africa had a long history of trade and exchange networks prior to the late 1400s, but the boom of global exploration led to an immediate escalation of these market connections. With European nations expanding their territories abroad and seeking to gain resources not found within their borders, they developed a need to break into the African markets while establishing permanent trade posts in the region. To achieve this, Europeans needed to supply goods that were in demand, and their minds set upon cowries.
Map by Adrian Kitzinger from Sahel: Art and Empires on the Shore of the Sahara West African Kingdoms and Trading StatesMap centered on the Atlantic Ocean with colored arrows showing movement of Enslaved Africans to the Americas, Raw Materials from Americas, and Manufactured goods from Europe Map showing the primary movement of Enslaved Africans, raw materials, and manufactured goods
While an item of currency and self-adornment to West Africans, cowries became a commodity in the hands of European, and later American, merchants. With cowries, merchants could navigate the local economy and barter for desired goods. Inevitably, this included kidnapped Africans. In his memoir, Olaudah Equiano (c. 1745-1797), a famed writer and abolitionist, recalled how one enslaver sold him to another for 172 “little white shells” while still in Africa. An examination of eighteenth-century shipping records reveals that cowries ranked amongst the most common goods transported to West Africa and used to trade for captives (Fig 6). For Africans who then faced the Middle Passage, they forcibly traveled aboard these same ships that in turn provided West Africa with the currency driving the economy and their enslavement — cowries.
Figure 6: List of goods imported to the Isle of Man via Rotterdam for trade in Africa, 1761 Manx National Heritage
Cowries in the Americas
Indo-Pacific cowries arrived in the Americas through several carriers, but ultimately all traveled on slave ships. In trading cowries to West Africa, foreign merchants supplied both types even though the market preferred M. moneta. As such, they often had leftover M. annulus which remained onboard as cargo and ballast when the ships continued their trans-Atlantic journeys. Once in the Americas, some captains elected to dump or sell off the remaining cowries rather than transport them back across the Atlantic. Cowries additionally arrived in the Americas on the bodies of kidnapped Africans. While common practice involved stripping captives in Africa, primary accounts report individuals retained beads and shells in their hair and as necklaces. Enslavers further distributed beads, and likely shells, as pacifiers during the Middle Passage.
Once in the Americas, cowries largely remained within Black communities though they did face geographical restrictions. For Virginia, archaeological distribution of the shells, mainly M. annulus, places them within the Tidewater region. Higher counts of shells appear in urban areas (Yorktown = 252) while plantations typically only have a few. Although Virginia’s current archaeological cowrie count falls above 353, this remains too few to support the traditional role as currency. Instead, the shells continued in roles of adornment and ritual with added symbolism of cultural loss, memory, and survival. Outside random finds in areas associated with enslavement, cowries recovered in the Americas have derived from burials, spirit caches, and sub-floor pits (Fig. 7).
Figure 7: Necklace recovered from an enslaved burial ground at Newton Plantation, BarbadosJerome Handler
At Ferry Farm
Over the course of our twenty-plus year excavation, two cowries have appeared at Ferry Farm. Found in contexts located around the Washington House, including one in a root cellar, our shells represent M. annulus and have undergone modification to allow for stringing or weaving (Fig. 8). As with findings in previous studies, we believe these shells took on cultural roles through self-adornment. Despite not knowing the identity of the shells’ owner(s), the cowries provide enough information to form an interpretation of who they belonged to and how they arrived at Ferry Farm.
Figure 8: Ferry Farm cowries with modifications visible
As their contexts of origin line up with the Washington House, the enslaved individuals who left them behind likely lived and worked close to the Washington family. This places them within the working realm of the house or the nearby work yard. For accommodation, the owner(s) may have occupied the Quarter adjacent to the Washington house or lived in one of the work yard’s support buildings.
Regarding the arrival of cowries on the plantation, this likely happened through the movement and exchange of people and goods. To provide the labor required to meet their goals, enslavers moved those they enslaved between different plantations as needed and expanded their workforce through the enslavement of more people or hiring of persons enslaved by others. This could account for the arrival of cowries at Ferry Farm. Alternatively, Ferry Farm’s proximity to the (port) city of Fredericksburg meant the enslaved community had access to a regional economy and trans-Atlantic vessels. Either network may have transported cowries to the city, but it additionally meant that Fredericksburg served as a meeting and trade point for those enslaved in the region.
Legacy
Cowries have a long and nuanced history in the Atlantic World. Beginning as a unit of currency and cultural symbol, cowries fell prey to the demands of the market, taking on a new role in the hands of foreign merchants. What once served to strengthen economies and nations suddenly worked to strip away the very people who inhabited West Africa. For those who endured enslavement, the cowries that accompanied them became symbols of a stolen home, a continuation of culture, and a determination to survive. Today, cowries remain important items in African and African American cultures by symbolizing their history as currency, continuing in self-adornment and ritual roles, and appearing prominently in works of art (Fig. 9-11).
Alpern, Stanley B. 1995 What Africans Got for Their Slaves: A Master List of European Trade Goods. History in Africa 22: 5-43
Equiano, Olaudah 1789 The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, Or Gustavus Vassa, The African. Written By Himself. London, UK
Handler, Jerome S. 2006 On the Transportation of Material Goods by Enslaved Africans During the Middle Passage: Preliminary findings from Documentary Sources. African Diaspora Archaeology Newsletter 9 (4): 1-22 (Article 16).
2007 From Cambay in India to Barbados in the Caribbean: Two Unique Beads from a Plantation Slave Cemetery. African Diaspora Archaeology Newsletter 10(1): 1-10 (Article 1)
Heath, Barbara J. 2016 Cowrie Shells, Global Trade, and Local Exchange: Piecing Together the Evidence for Colonial Virginia. Historical Archaeology 50 (2): 17-46.
National Museum of African American History & Culture n.d. Cowrie Shells and Trade Power. National Museum of African American History & Culture, Smithsonian, Washington D.C. <https://nmaahc.si.edu/cowrie-shells-and-trade-power>. Accessed 3 June 2024.
Ogundiran, Akinwumi 2002 Of Small Things Remembered: Beads, Cowries, and Cultural Translations of the Atlantic Experience in Yorubaland. The International Journal of African Historical Studies 35 (2/3): 427-457.
Pallaver, Karin 2023 Cowries, the currency that powered West Africa. ReThink Quarterly 7 <https://rethinkq.adp.com/artifact-cowries-west-africa/>. Accessed 3 June 2024.
Pearce, Laurie E. 1992 The Cowrie Shell in Virginia: A Critical Evaluation of Potential Archaeological Significance. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William & Mary. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.
Radburn, Nicholas J. 2009 William Davenport, the Slave Trade, and Merchant Enterprise in Eighteenth-Century Liverpool. Master’s thesis, Department of History, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Samford, Patricia 1994 Searching for West African Cultural Meanings in the Archaeological Record. African Diaspora Newsletter 1 (3): 1-3 (Article 2).
Think about a portrait or painting of George Washington. What is a common element in the paintings? His uniform, yes, he is indeed painted quite a bit in his impressive military uniform. But how about a horse? George is often painted riding beautiful horses with a quiet dignity and noble appearance we expect from the father of our country.
Washington at Verplanck’s Point by John Trumbull, Source: Winterthur
However, the horses in these paintings are not mere symbols of wealth or power. They are depicted with George because, from a tender age, his life has been intertwined with these creatures. As a surveyor, soldier, landowner, farmer, gentry, commander-in-chief, and president, he was inextricably linked with horses, not just as a mode of transportation but as a vital part of his daily life.
And it all started at Ferry Farm…
George moved to Ferry Farm around 1738 at the age of six. His father, Augustine Washington, was a member of the “planter class,” or Colonial American gentry. This meant he was a prominent member of society, involved in politics, and owned lots of land. Augustine purchased 150 acres across the river from Fredericksburg and later added an additional 450-acre parcel. In total, he owned Little Hunting Creek, Pope’s Creek, and the Ferry Farm properties.
The point? Augustine needed help because there were places to be, people to see, and fields to farm. So, horses were a fundamental necessity for the Washington family, and George would have grown up around them, taking care of them and learning to ride.
We have two great sources that give us some understanding of the horse situation at Ferry Farm. First, in 1743, the Washington patriarch died, leaving behind a widow, an 11-year-old George, and a probate inventory. On page two of the inventory, three horses and one mare are listed.
Augustine Washington Probate Inventory, 1743
Secondly, some pretty cool horse tack dating from the Washington occupation has been found during various archeological digs.
The Finds
One of the most universally known horse tack, essential for all horse maintenance – is the horseshoe. The horseshoe was used to protect the hooves because “…being rendered subservient to the use of man…applied to severe and continued labour, and compelled to tread frequently…on the irregular and stony surface of the roads, it became necessary to secure his feet from ruin by strengthening them with the iron band which we call a shoe” (Vial de Saint Bel, 1793). These shoes were handmade with no standardization across makers in shape, narrowness, or thickness. (Hume, 2001). This makes it difficult to pinpoint and assign a time on shape alone.
Our horseshoe was found in the second cellar of the Washington Home. It is quite wide between the branches (the curving sides), and the toe seems to straighten a bit at the center. The crease (the groove that runs down the sides) gives enough depth to allow the shoe to be firmly attached to the hoof with six nails (which we found a few originals). (University of Zurich, 2024) This find illustrates that there was active shoeing and horse maintenance going on at the farm. Additionally, these horses were ridden or used for farm work because shoes were used to protect the hooves from the wear and tear of hard roads, distribute the horse’s weight evenly on uneven ground, and provide traction on various surfaces.
Horseshoe with original nails
Another artifact found in the cellar of the Washington Home, the stirrup, further demonstrates horse riding as a family necessity. (Cofield, 2014)
Stirrup
The stirrups are used as foot support for the rider, and they hang from a saddle on straps known as stirrup leathers. Basic stirrups are made of three parts the eyes for the stirrup leathers to attach the stirrup to the saddle, a platform or base where the rider places their foot, and arms which connect the eye to the base. (Cofield, 2014)
Examples of Stirrup Forms Source: Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland
Horseback riding master and author VS Littauer described the Forward Seat as a stirrup-centric approach versus traditional riding’s seat-centric. He argued riding without stirrups taught people to grip with the knee, which he considered a dangerous habit and likely to stiffen the rider. With stirrups, you can ride with a looser knee, letting your weight flow PAST your knee and into the stirrup. That is a more secure approach than riding with the thigh and knee. (Littauer, 1962)
Captain Vladimir Littauer – Forward Seat Riding,1947
Stirrups allow the rider’s legs to absorb up/down motion by allowing them to stand in matching balance with the horse, which makes riding longer distances more comfortable. Augustine certainly had to travel a great distance to check on his properties and perform his civic duties, like serving as a justice of the peace and sheriff for the county of Westmoreland.
One final utilitarian bit of horse tack found again in the cellar is a mullen mouth bit or snaffle bit. This bit consists of two rings on each side of a half-moon-shaped bar with no joint. The bit applies even pressure on the horse’s tongue and bars (gums) and allows the horse’s lips to feel the pressure from the bit and side rings. The bit, bridle, and reins function to create communication between the rider and the horse.
Mouth Bit
The Washington children would have used bits to learn to control. They would have learned how to work with the horse in a cooperative way that would create an effortless and seamless ride. George used this skill of communication and intuition to become a great rider. As Thomas Jefferson reminisced in a letter in 1814, “his person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, his deportment easy, erect, and noble; the best horseman of his age, and the most graceful figure that could be seen on horseback.” (National Archives, n.d.)
Lastly, just south of “The Quarter,” we uncovered around twenty leather ornaments. They were used to decorate the leather straps, nosebands, harnesses, and reins of horses. We wrote a post about them earlier explaining their purpose, which was purely aesthetic. Horse tack could be made without these pieces, but where is the fun in that? These flashy accessories were a great way to grab the attention of the public and hint at how fashionable and elegant you were as you trotted through town.
Ferry Farm leather ornaments dating from the 1700sThis copper-alloy mount dates from the mid-to-late 1700s
These artifacts illustrate that not only were horses actively used by the family, but it also fostered an environment where young George would have taken his first steps into learning about horsemanship. This knowledge and skill would help him in his future careers of surveying the Shenandoah Valley, as a lieutenant colonel during the French and Indian War, as a farmer and landowner at Mount Vernon, as a representative in the House of Burgesses, as commander-and-chief of the Continental Army and finally President of the United States.
Come see our new pop-up exhibit at Ferry Farm, where all these wonderful artifacts are displayed and put together with the help of our Fleming-Smith scholar, Sarah Moore.
A quick refresher from part one of the TD marked pipe saga – Clay tobacco pipes with the mark TD are a ubiquitous item at historical archaeology sites dating from the mid-18th through the 20th century. While at one point the mark represented a specific maker, it later became a mark synonymous with clay tobacco pipes themselves. So, it’s not surprising that archaeologists and historians have been looking to identify the origin of the mark for years. These efforts led to the naming of Thomas Dormer as the maker most likely to have begun the rise of the TD mark, though this identification was less than certain (Walker, 1966).
Now that we are all caught up, let’s pick up the quest once again.
Adrian Oswald’s (1975) index of pipe makers lists Thomas Dormer as one of the only London-based pipe makers with the initials TD trading with the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) in the years 1748-1770. HBC records also mention that Dormer went into business with his son for a brief time from 1754-1756. Oswald built on this by looking at the insurance policies of pipe makers of the time, which shows that the value of Thomas Dormer’s estate was nearly five times that of other pipe makers (Alexander, 1978). In the 18th century, pipe makers and the pipe making industry were often relegated to the lower class and the poorer parts of town (Walker, 1981). Dormer’s large estate implies he stood out at the time.
So, we know that Thomas Dormer produced and imported his pipes into North America around the time TD marked pipes started popping up at sites, and that he was doing well for himself. We can call it a day and say Thomas Dormer was the original TD, right? While that does sound pretty enticing, there still needs to be more evidence supporting Dormer’s claim to the TD mark. At the time of the previous research there was very little historical documentation of Dormer and his life available, which left some questions unanswered: Why did Dormer stop exporting pipes in 1770? What is the reason behind the brief mention of this son in the mid 1750’s? And why did these pipes continue to be produced beyond 1770 with the TD mark, if not by Dormer himself? These questions made it difficult to confirm that Thomas Dormer was the TD.
Previous timeline of Dormer pipe production
This opens the door for my research as I attempt to fill in the blanks surrounding Dormer and his life. Since a trip to London to begin my research was off the table, much of my investigation was done through online archival research. Yay for digitization efforts and increased access to information!
One of the first items identified was Thomas Dormer’s will dated January 1771 (National Archives). It gives his occupation as a pipe maker and his location at Brewhouse Yard, confirming this to be the correct Thomas Dormer. Finding this document provided information that would further the investigation including a probable death date and the names of family members.
Thomas Dormer’s will 1771 (National Archives)
Speaking of family members, Thomas Dormer chose to leave the entirety of his vast estate to his “loving mother Judith.” On the other hand, he left his wife Margaret one single shilling. Hold up, just one shilling? This led me down a mini rabbit hole where I found that Thomas and Margaret had been married for 11 years. Indeed, long enough for her to have a fair share of the estate. Additionally, it wasn’t uncommon for wives to take over their husband’s pipe making business after their death, yet Dormer left things to his mother instead. Ouch!
Dormer’s division of his estate (National Archives)
Anyway, back to the investigation. Using 1771 as a probable death date I was able to find a Burial Notice dated February 1771 stating Thomas Dormer died at the age of 39 due to consumption, or tuberculosis as we know it today (London Metropolitan Archives [LMA]). An age at death gave me the ability to estimate his birthday to sometime around 1731 or 1732 and identified a Christening Record for Dormer dated 1731(LMA). It lists his mother as Judith Dormer which fits with previous records, and it also lists his father who is, wait for it, Thomas Dormer, a pipe maker. This uncovers the fact that there were two Thomas Dormers producing pipes in 18th century London, father and son.
After finding that fun fact I switched gears to see if I could find information about Thomas Dormer Sr. Given the birthdate of Thomas Jr., I figured Thomas Sr. was probably born some time in the early 1700s. Using that date, I identified his Burial Notice dated December 1756. It listed Thomas Dormer Sr. dying at the age of 56 due to asthma (LMA). Additionally, an apprenticeship indenture for Thomas Jr. was located (LMA). Dated 1746, it lists his seven-year apprenticeship under John Hawkes. Now, an apprenticeship in itself isn’t too exciting, but this was an apprenticeship for a joiner, not a pipe maker. Considering Jr. did go on to be a pipe maker, and a popular one at that, makes his previous foray into joinery an unexpected plot twist.
Let’s put all of this information together. Cue the timeline! The newly discovered documentary evidence now allows me to create an updated chronology of the Dormer pipe production. Thomas Dormer Sr. began producing pipes in the London area some time prior to 1731. By 1748 Dormer Sr. was doing well enough in the business to begin exporting pipes into North America. Indenture records suggest that Dormer Jr. was not always intending to take over the business, but perhaps his father’s health prompted this, or the incoming wealth from overseas changed his mind. Nonetheless, sometime in the year 1754, or the years leading up to it, Thomas Dormer Jr. came into the family business. This partnership was short lived due to Thomas Dormer Sr.’s death in 1756, explaining the brief mention of their partnership in the HBC records. Following Dormer Sr.’s death, his son Thomas Dormer Jr., continued to produce and export pipes to North America until his death in 1771.
Updated Dormer pipe production timeline with newinformation
This timeline helps put all the previous information into context and more fully supports Thomas Dormer Sr. and then Jr. as the originators of the TD mark.
But wait there’s more! I also located Judith Dormer’s (Thomas Jr.’s mom) will dated 1782 (LMA). In her will she mentions her properties and its association with Tidy & Evans pipe makers (LMA). During my look into the HBC records I found that Tidy & Evans take over the London pipe export a few years after Dormer Jr.’s death. Now remember, Jr gave her all his estate which included his warehouse and workshop (LMA). Perhaps Tidy & Evans occupied his workshop and continued making TD marked pipes using Dormer’s molds after his death. Using the molds of other pipe makers was not unheard of at the time (Walker, 1981). But why would they want to make pipes with a mark other than their own?
Mention of Tidy & Evans in HBC records and Judith’s will
Well, a search on the Library of Congress’s Chronicling America located a 1771 Massachusetts Spy advertisement that specifically lists London TD pipes (LOC). Not only does this solidify that TD pipes were based out of London, it also supports that the popularization of these pipes occurred during the Dormers’ lifetimes. For these pipes to be advertised by name it can be assumed that their popularity had already been established by this point. Whether this popularity had to do with the quality or the quantity of Dormer’s pipes being imported into North America remains unknown. The resulting name recognition may have caused a continued demand for these pipes, leading Tidy & Evans and others to continue producing them.
1771 Massachusetts Spy article (LOC)
These new findings present a solid case for Thomas Dormer being the originator of the TD mark. We can now see that TD pipes were based out of London and popularized during the period when Dormer produced and exported pipes. After 1771 the TD mark stopped representing pipes made by Dormer, and the mark was then used by other makers, perhaps Tidy & Evans, representing tobacco clay pipes themselves rather than a specific maker.
Research such as this illustrates the importance of revisiting past theories. Whether it be trying to answer questions about a mark representing nearly 300 years of tobacco smoking culture, or looking to find interesting insight into the life of the pipe maker that created it, there is more information out there, we just need to keep looking.
So, what do you think? Did I solve the mystery of the man behind the mark?
Danielle Arens
GWF Archaeologist
References
Alexander, L. T. (1978) ‘Clay Tobacco Smoking Pipes from the Caleb Pusey House, The Archaeological Society of Delaware, 9, 35pp.
London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P69/Gis/A/002/Ms06419/016
London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P93/JN2/025
London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P93/JN2/026
London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P93/JN2/026
London Metropolitan Archive; Reference Number: COL/CHD/FR/02/0778-0-785
National Archives, Kew, Will of Thomas Dormer, Pipe Maker of Saint John Wapping , Middlesex, PROB 11/963/352
Oswald, A. (1975) Clay Pipes for the Archaeologist, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 14, Oxford, 207pp
Walker, I. (1966, June). TD Pipes – A Preliminary Study. Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia, pp. 86-102.
Walker, S. (1981). The Clay Pipe Industry of the Parish of St Olave’s Southwark, in P Davey, The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe 6, Pipes and Kilns in the London Region, B97, 173–82
Woollard, P, (2001) Some Clay Tobacco Pipemakers with Fire Insurance Policies in the Sun Assurance Company 1710-1844, The Society for Clay Pipe Research, 62
Because of this, the motifs and marks on tobacco pipes can tell us a lot about the people who used them.
Tobacco pipes can also be valuable tools for dating a site by using pipe bore diameters, typologies, and maker’s marks. This last one helps set the stage for our question of the hour.
Some makers would mark their pipes to indicate a product as theirs. These marks can be found on different parts of a pipe, such as the bowl, heel, or stem. Finding a pipe with a maker’s mark can be very exciting as it allows a pipe to be attributed to a specific pipe maker and, thus, a time period. But that is not always the case. One of the more common maker’s marks in many archaeological sites is the mark “TD.” Remember the two we found during last summer’s dig?
Figure 2: Diagram of a tobacco pipe National Pipe Archive Figure 3: TD pipe bowls in Ferry Farm collection Figure 4: TD pipe bowl from 2023 dig
So, you’re probably thinking, what’s the question again? Just go look up a pipe maker with the initials TD, and you will have your maker. Well, unfortunately, it’s not always that easy.
There are multiple pipe makers with those initials, and the pipes with variations of the TD mark have been found at sites with occupation dates suggesting the mark was being produced from the mid-18th century all the way into the 20th century. At some point, the mark stopped representing a single maker and instead became a symbol used on pipes throughout the years, reflecting clay tobacco pipes themselves. Think of it as the Kleenex or Q-tip of its time. TD became synonymous with clay tobacco pipes. This can be seen in written records like a catalog from 1892 that touts their rendition of “the Celebrated “T.D.” pipe” (Zorn). An early 20th-century song referencing “the Old TD” also supports the lasting influence of the mark (Cooper, 1907, as cited by Walker, 1966).
Figure 5: George Zorn & Co.’s “T.D.” pipe advertisement 1892 Figure 6: Early 20th-century smoking song, no known date or author, Cooper 1907 as cited by Walker 1966
Since there is no solid end date to help frame who the possible maker could be, archaeologists and historians have focused on looking at beginning dates to help find the original maker of the TD pipes, settling on a date in the middle of the 18th century. Archaeologists Adrian Oswald and Iain Walker are often cited as laying the foundations of the current TD lore. The combination of their findings identifies 18th-century London-based pipemaker Thomas Dormer as the most likely originator of the TD mark (Walker, 1966). With that said, Walker (1966) states that more information will have to be found to definitively give Dormer credit for originating the mark.
So, that brings us to the start of my research and a revisiting of the foundation of this theory, which was laid out as early as the 1930s. Who is Thomas Dormer, and is he the original TD? Why were TD pipes so popular that they were copied and made for centuries? And can we find new information to crack the case of the elusive TD mark?
The first step of the investigation is reviewing the literature and identifying current thoughts on TD pipes and their maker. One of the earliest deep dives into TD pipe origins can be found in the article “A Theory Regarding TD pipes” in the November 1937 printing of Antiques magazine. In this article, Alfred Hopkins expresses the mystery surrounding the mark and suggests its possible meaning. At the time, Hopkins (1937) and his contemporaries were unable to find potential pipe makers with the initials TD that would indicate the mark was referring to a maker. Instead, he states that it was a trademark of sorts to identify a quality product (Hopkins, 1937). He also mentions that TD may represent the beginning of the Christian hymn Te Deum Laudamus (Hopkins, 1937). Now remember, folks, this was written in the 1930s, and at the time, they didn’t have easy access to information. While more information has since been shared, we now know that there were indeed pipe makers with these initials and look more toward a maker rather than a hymn; Hopkins’ article plays an integral part in our quest by illustrating that there was an interest in the TD mark as early as the 1930s.
Figure 7: 1937 Alfred Hopkins article
Moving away from the 1930s and into the 1960s, Adrian Oswald compiled an index of pipe makers, which Iain Walker (1966) refined to find three possible English pipe makers that could be the originator of the mark: Thomas Dennis, Thomas Darkes, and Thomas Dormer. Walker (1966) continued this search and identified London-based pipemaker Thomas Dormer as the most likely of the three. Nailing down their sources became the next part of the puzzle in an attempt to confirm this information through primary source research and examination of any sources referred to in support of the theory.
This is where the quest to find new information about Thomas Dormer begins. Through this investigation, I was able to identify the “OG TD,” some juicy 18th-century family drama, and the possible first plagiarizers of the TD mark. There are twists, turns, and, unfortunately, too much to tell you in just one blog, so be sure to check out part two, where we get to the bottom of this mystery that began nearly 100 years ago.
Danielle Arens
GWF Archaeologist
References
(2022). Retrieved from George-M-Woodward-mavcor.yale.edu.jpg
It’s that time again! As we welcome Fall and the beautiful cool weather it brings, let’s take a look back at our Summer 2023 dig season here at Ferry Farm, George Washington’s Boyhood Home. This year’s dig actually involved excavating two separate areas, designated FF-38 and FF-40, within the historic area.
Location of the archaeological projects FF-38 and FF-40 at Ferry Farm.
Project FF-38
The FF-38 area contained a large, dark, soil stain that was discovered by accident during the monitoring of a utility trench in 2016. Only a portion of this feature was visible at that time as it continued beneath the south wall of the trench. We had clues as to the approximate date of this partially-exposed feature, but we still needed to fully uncover the entire feature to establish its total dimensions and determine its age, function, and how it relates to the surrounding landscape.
F.321 as seen in 2016 within the utility trench. Only the northern portion of the feature was exposed at this time. F.321 is outlined in red, and is intruded by a square, lighter-colored 19th-century feature (F. 324).
Our excavation began by the machine removal of two modern layers of gravel that overlay a thick 19th-century layer of plowed soil. The excavation area measured approximately 16 ft. by 20 ft. Our crew of archaeologists then slowly excavated down through the plowed layer until we could identify the boundaries of Feature 321. Fully uncovered, the exciting discoveries began.
First and foremost, we discovered the feature was much bigger than originally thought! What initially appeared in 2016 to be a 5’x7’ roundish feature turned out to be the northern tip of a large rectangle measuring 10’ by 16’. The size and shape alone of the feature shifted our interpretation from a small pit to something larger.
F.321 fully exposed before excavation (outlined in red). The intrusive feature, F. 324, has been partially dug out at the north end of the site.
Feature 321 was divided into four sections and our crew excavated both southwest and northeast quadrants. This excavation approach allowed us to determine that the feature was roughly 1’ deep at the center, with gently sloping sides, and filled with successive layers of soil and ash-filled deposits. These soil layers provided us with an awesome mix of artifacts which were used to nail down the feature’s end date to the middle of the 18th century. But establishing a date is only part of the process: artifacts can further help us identify the function of the feature as well.
F.321 after the southwest and northeast quadrants were excavated. Intrusive Feature 324 is outlined in green.
That being said, we are still unsure of what this feature actually is. Here is what we know so far. There is no hearth of chimney remains. Lack of a fireplace suggests it wasn’t a domestic dwelling, but it could be another type of plantation outbuilding, such as a storage building, shed, or barn. The edges are almost vertical, and the floor is relatively flat. There is no silt so the pit was covered while it was open. It is too regular to be a quarry pit used to harvest clay as a building material.
Even though we are still in the early days of analyzing the artifacts, that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about a few great things we found. This feature had a little bit of everything: personal items, food-related items, architectural debris, domestic items, etc. The crowning glory of the excavation (in our humble opinion) would have to be the complete pipe bowl that was stamped with a maker’s mark that featured the letters “TD.” Other exciting finds include a clipped Spanish coin, sherds to a Westerwald ink well, shark teeth, and prehistoric pottery, just to name a few. This feature also contained a layer of ash that preserved delicate artifacts such as bone, fish scales, and straight pins – items that often don’t survive in the archaeological record.
So what does this all mean? Well, this means that we will definitely be returning to the FF-38 site next season. While we have gathered a lot of information during this dig, there is still much left to find. Expanding our excavation beyond the limits of the feature and excavating one of the remaining two quadrants will help us interpret the feature’s function and how it relates to the 18th-century farm landscape of the Washington family.
FF-40
Wait, that’s not all for this year’s dig. Don’t forget that we had two excavation areas this year. Our second area was FF-40, which was the remains of an 18th century kitchen had experienced an intense fire. This kitchen was partially excavated in the 1990s, so this year’s excavation had more of an exploratory excavation designed to help us establish a game plan for future excavation. We knew the kitchen remains were below the foundations of two later farmhouses, and that the foundation walls of these farmhouses were still extant. Additionally, the interior of the foundations was filled with sand to protect the kitchen site. Our excavations confirmed the location of the farmhouse foundations and the existence of a protective layer of sand! Once our crew were able to get through this sandy fill, a quick clean of the kitchen fill uncovered artifacts that were absolutely toasty. Okay, toasty isn’t a technical term, but the artifacts showed evidence of a fire that burned at extremely high temperatures. This included a high number of architectural artifacts as well as charred ceramics and melted glass. Findings from this year will help guide the excavation in the future.
The burned kitchen site is located beneath these concrete house foundations dating to 1914. This picture was taken after protective sand fill was removed within the excavation unit.
Phew, that was a lot! That sums up our 12-week dig season. We answered a lot of our initial questions and found many more questions to investigate. Archaeologists will be in the lab the rest of the year processing artifacts, researching our findings, planning next season’s dig, and enjoying the A/C. Stop by the lab in the Visitor’s Center and take a peek at what’s happening. See you all in the field next May!